configure_math

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers two important behavioral traits: partial updates leave other parameters untouched, and all validation occurs before anything is sent (no partial writes). It does not cover persistence, connection requirements, or error behavior, but the disclosed traits are substantive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the scope sentence, then organized as a parameter glossary. It is long, but for 42 parameters at 0% schema coverage the density is justified and nearly every line carries constraint information. Minor redundancy in restating operator applicability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a 42-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description supplies the enum values, ranges, dependencies, and passthrough rules an agent needs to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for 42 parameters, so the description must compensate fully, and it does: it enumerates allowed enums (ADD|SUBTract|...), ranges (fft_avg_count 2..1000, fft_hscale_hz 10 Hz..2 GHz), cross-field constraints (end must exceed start by >10 Hz, W1 < W2), conditional applicability (invert not for FFT/logic, fft_avg_count only in AVERage mode), and the passthrough semantics of 'extra'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Configure math channel MATH1..MATH4') and scopes it to the manual section. It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings like get_math_config or configure_reference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It notes partial-update semantics ('Only given parameters are changed') and validation ordering, which guides invocation, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives (e.g., get_math_config for reads, configure_reference for ref channels). Usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.